Sea level rise example

[dixon01767]

Here you go:

Midway Atoll - Wikipedia

It's called construction and doesn't take a genius to figure. It's a special kinda ignorant to be fooled by the OP.

The picture is of eastern Island, not sand Island.

 

[longview]

I prefer graphs with temperature as opposed to temperature anomaly

Your graph brings up something I read yesterday.
Climate forcing and feedback in The Azimuth Project

A feedback is said to be positive if warming leads to further warming, and cooling to further cooling.
Otherwise it is said to be negative.
If the total feedback, counting all mechanisms, were positive, then the Earth’s climate would be unstable.

The fact of the matter is, that our climate is and has been very stable.

 

[dixon01767]

Your graph brings up something I read yesterday.
Climate forcing and feedback in The Azimuth Project

The fact of the matter is, that our climate is and has been very stable.

AND, we should expect the earth to be warming, we are coming out of an ice age. AND we should expect warming with the covering of the earth with asphalt, concrete and structures. Feasible that all the warming is due to natural fluctuations and human activities other than the production of CO2. It seems there must be some negative feed back occurring that we are not aware of from C02. Perhaps something as simple as increased cloud cover reflecting the heat back out into space.

 

[Visbek]

AND, we should expect the earth to be warming, we are coming out of an ice age.

No, we're not. The last Ice Age ended around 10,000 years ago. See #122 / 124 above.

AND we should expect warming with the covering of the earth with asphalt, concrete and structures.

No, we shouldn't.

Urban areas are a small percentage of the Earth's surface area; and every major temperature measure removes the impact of those urban heat effects anyway. And obviously, asphalt and concrete doesn't explain why ocean and atmospheric temperatures are rising; why the oceans are becoming more acidic; why permafrost is melting; why glaciers and other ice masses are shrinking, and so on.

Feasible that all the warming is due to natural fluctuations and human activities other than the production of CO2.

It really isn't.

Climate scientists have been working on this for decades, using all sorts of tools and observations. No one is missing anything, nor is your refusal to accept that CO2 is a major cause of global warming proof thereof.

It seems there must be some negative feed back occurring that we are not aware of from C02. Perhaps something as simple as increased cloud cover reflecting the heat back out into space.

Nope, nope, nope.

We already measure the impacts of clouds on global temperatures. There is uncertainty about the future impacts of changes in cloud cover and cloud generation, but we are not missing it from current or recent past measurements.

The science is sound. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 in the atmosphere = more trapped heat = more water vapor and other feedbacks.

 

[longview]

No, we're not. The last Ice Age ended around 10,000 years ago. See #122 / 124 above.



No, we shouldn't.

Urban areas are a small percentage of the Earth's surface area; and every major temperature measure removes the impact of those urban heat effects anyway. And obviously, asphalt and concrete doesn't explain why ocean and atmospheric temperatures are rising; why the oceans are becoming more acidic; why permafrost is melting; why glaciers and other ice masses are shrinking, and so on.



It really isn't.

Climate scientists have been working on this for decades, using all sorts of tools and observations. No one is missing anything, nor is your refusal to accept that CO2 is a major cause of global warming proof thereof.

View attachment 67272789



Nope, nope, nope.

We already measure the impacts of clouds on global temperatures. There is uncertainty about the future impacts of changes in cloud cover and cloud generation, but we are not missing it from current or recent past measurements.

The science is sound. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 in the atmosphere = more trapped heat = more water vapor and other feedbacks.

Only in your dreams, do we understand all the variables to the level you imagine.
Consider in your graphic the Cloud adjustments due to aerosols, and the associated error bar, -.55 (-1.33 to -.06),
that one item is almost half of the CO2 positive contribution, and it is too low!
The Forcing for 2XCO2 is supposed to be 3.71 Wm-2 and 1.1C (~.3C/Wm-2).
The range for ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, a 3C error bar, most of which is attributable to our poor understanding of how clouds
interact with radiation. Anyway that 3C of error bar would translate to 10 Wm-2 of radiative forcing.
If the ratio held the same roughly 3:1, then the error bar for clouds would be 5.6 Wm-2.

 

[Jack Hays]

. . . Climate scientists have been working on this for decades, using all sorts of tools and observations. No one is missing anything, nor is your refusal to accept that CO2 is a major cause of global warming proof thereof.

View attachment 67272789



Nope, nope, nope.

We already measure the impacts of clouds on global temperatures. There is uncertainty about the future impacts of changes in cloud cover and cloud generation, but we are not missing it from current or recent past measurements.

The science is sound. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 in the atmosphere = more trapped heat = more water vapor and other feedbacks.

Nir Shaviv has explained why that graphic needs correction.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

​

This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . .

 

[Glitch]

AND, we should expect the earth to be warming, we are coming out of an ice age. AND we should expect warming with the covering of the earth with asphalt, concrete and structures. Feasible that all the warming is due to natural fluctuations and human activities other than the production of CO2. It seems there must be some negative feed back occurring that we are not aware of from C02. Perhaps something as simple as increased cloud cover reflecting the heat back out into space.

Actually, we are still in an ice-age. We are experiencing the Earth's fifth ice-age to be precise. Ice-ages are determined by a sudden drop between 8°C to 10°C from the mean average of 22°C ± 1°C, and when the poles freeze. Glaciers began forming in Antarctica ~34 million years ago, but there was still lots of tundra. Prior to that Antarctica was ice-free. Antarctica didn't freeze, like we know it, until about 14 million years ago. The current mean surface temperature is 14.8°C. Which means we are still in an ice-age. This is just one of the multitude of brief interglacial periods between long periods of glaciation.

The Holocene Interglacial Period began at the end of the Younger Dryas, 11,700 years ago. Prior to that was the Eocene Interglacial Period that lasted from 130,000 years ago until 114,000 years ago. Then we had 102,300 years of glaciation. Eventually the Holocene Interglacial Period will also end, just like the 50+ interglacial periods before it, and we will return to another ~100,000 year period when 20% of the planet will be covered in ice. It is not a question of "if" it will happen, only a question of "when."

See also The history of ice on Earth | New Scientist

 

[Visbek]

See also The history of ice on Earth | New Scientist

Did you really miss the ways that your own source points out the role of CO2 and orbital shifts in global temperatures? (Answer: Yes.)

During the 200 million years of the Cryogenian period, the Earth was plunged into some of the deepest cold it has ever experienced – and the emergence of complex life may have caused it. One theory is that the glaciation was triggered by the evolution of large cells, and possibly also multicellular organisms, that sank to the seabed after dying. This would have sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere, weakening the greenhouse effect and thus lowering global temperatures....

Like the Cryogenian glaciation, the Karoo ice age featured two peaks in ice cover that may well have been distinct ice ages. They took place in the Mississipian period, 359 to 318 million years ago, and again in the Pennsylvanian 318 to 299 million years ago.

These ice ages may have been the result of the expansion of land plants that followed the Cryogenian. As plants spread over the planet, they absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and released oxygen (PDF). As a result CO2 levels fell and the greenhouse effect weakened, triggering an ice age. There is some evidence that the ice came and went in regular cycles, driven by changes in Earth’s orbit. If true, this would mean that the Karoo ice age operated in much the same way as the current one.

The main trigger for the Quaternary glaciation was the continuing fall in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the weathering of the Himalayas. However, the timing of the glacials and interglacials was driven by periodic changes in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of sunshine reaching various parts of the planet. The effect of these small orbital changes was amplified by positive feedbacks, such as changes in greenhouse gas levels....

There's more where that came from. You ought to read more carefully next time.

 

[dixon01767]

No, we're not. The last Ice Age ended around 10,000 years ago. See #122 / 124 above.

What are you babbling on about. We are still in the ice age and have not yet come out of it. Thus the large Ice sheets on the North and south pole.

 

[flogger]

The eastern island of Midway, 1941:

View attachment 67272356

Satellite view today:

View attachment 67272358

The island is 1.25 miles long. Why hasn't it shrunk due to rising sea levels?

The seas have been rising for the last 18,000 years ......minus capitalism :wink:

 

[dixon01767]

Actually, we are still in an ice-age.

Thus my phrase, "coming out of an ice age".

 

[Glitch]

Thus my phrase, "coming out of an ice age".

It will be several million more years before we come out of an ice age. This fifth ice-age has only been around for the last 2.58 million years. The prior four ice-ages lasted tens of millions of years. The last ice-age began 350 million years ago and didn't end until 270 million years ago. So don't hold your breath waiting for this ice-age to end anytime soon.